\begin{table}[htbp!] \small \centering \begin{threeparttable} \caption{Hjort et al. (2021) policy adoption experiment: Control and treatment rates by adoption definition} \begin{tabular} {l c c c c c c} \toprule \textit{Adoption definition} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{All 3 mechanisms} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$ \geq2$ of 3 mechanisms} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Social cues} \\ \cmidrule(lr){2-3} \cmidrule(lr){4-5} \cmidrule(lr){6-7} \% ($ N$) & Control & Treatment & Control & Treatment & Control & Treatment \\ \hline 
No Letter + No Nudge & 80.43\% (945) & 77.83\% (853) & 73.36\% (862) & 69.80\% (765) & 79.40\% (933) & 76.28\% (836) \\
Letter + No Nudge & 10.38\% (122) & 10.22\% (112) & 2.55\% (30) & 1.92\% (21) & 9.28\% (109) & 8.21\% (90) \\
No Letter + Nudge & 4.00\% (47) & 3.65\% (40) & 11.06\% (130) & 11.68\% (128) & 5.02\% (59) & 5.20\% (57) \\
Letter + Nudge & 5.19\% (61) & 8.30\% (91) & 13.02\% (153) & 16.61\% (182) & 6.30\% (74) & 10.31\% (113) \\
\bottomrule \end{tabular} \label{tab:hjort_rates} \begin{tablenotes} \footnotesize \item This table shows the frequency and number of mayors and city staff stating whether their city sends a tax payment reminder communication and what language it contains. The 3 mechanisms mentioned in the template for the tax reminder letter are the due date, the threat of audits or fines, and social norm language. \end{tablenotes} \end{threeparttable} \end{table}
